Described himself as “a Christian, a husband, and a father of three young children (6, 4, and 2),” stating that he moved to Texas for law school because he wanted to “live and raise a family in a place that valued freedom,” and explained his belief that “you cannot have freedom without responsibility,” criticizing modern discourse for focusing on “what is owed to people instead of what is expected of them,” while adding that he tries “to be thankful for the things God has given me.”
John Messinger
Republican | Texas
Candidate Profile*
Originalist
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
John Messinger
Party
Republican
Election Year
2026
Election
Republican Primary
Race
Court of Criminal Appeals 9
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Baylor Law School, Waco, J.D., 2003-2006
WORK & MILITARY
McLennan County District Attorney's Office, Assistant District Attorney, 2007-2010
Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney, Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney, 2010-2026
AFFILIATIONS
Hillcrest Church, Deacon, 2025-2025
Radiance Women's Center, Board President, 2020-2023
Radiance Women's Center, Board Treasurer, 2020-2025
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Third Court of Appeals, Place 2, 2024-
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
CONSERVATIVE (16)
*Young Conservatives of Texas
Texas Home School Coalition THSC PAC
*Texas Patriots PAC
*Rick Green
Grassroots America: We the People
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (4)
Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2025)
Republican Womens Organizations (2025)
State Republican Party Organizations (2025)
Bastrop County Conservatives (2024)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (4)
Lesli Fitzpatrick (2024)
Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2024)
Republican Womens Organizations (2024)
State Republican Party Organizations (2024)
OTHER INFORMATION
Messinger believes judges should “follow the law” and not just do “whatever one thinks is fair,” because otherwise “all we would have are little dictators who decide things differently from Court to court and county to county.”
Messinger rejects empathy as a judicial virtue, particularly at the appellate level stating, “Empathy is a terrible quality for a judge, especially an appellate judge. The last thing anyone should want is a judge who lets his feelings about one or both parties influence his decision.”
He said that if a law seems unfair, the answer is to “go to the Legislature and get it fixed… It is not the job of judges to decide what they think Texans want and to make the law say that.”
Explained that judicial impartiality requires ignoring the identities and social positions of the parties.
“Fair administration requires ignoring the identities and social positions of the parties and not giving into compassion; Lady Justice is blind for a reason.”
Framed the family structure as central to social order and moral responsibility stating, “The real problem underlying most others is the breakdown of the family.”
Believes valuing life as foundational to social stability and public policy, “It starts with valuing life.”
John Messinger completed Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Yes. Nothing in the text of the Constitution supports anything like abortion. That we even have conversations about whether we can find rights as a matter of "substantive due process" is a huge problem. Fortunately, the prevailing test requires identifying an alleged right so deeply rooted in history and culture that it would be difficult to imagine liberty without it. The unfettered right to kill one's unborn child is obviously not one of those.
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
No. Again, Glucksberg at least sets forth a workable test for when someone claims an unwritten right protected by the 14th Amendment. States, as sovereign entities, are free to experiment with such practices. Attitudes surrounding assisted suicide change, for better or worse. But there is nothing in our country's tradition that suggests the right to help someone kill themselves is so fundamental that it is constitutionally protected without even being mentioned.
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Strongly Agree
I'm a career prosecutor and support the death penalty. I consider the extensive legal protections afforded a defendant who is charged with capital murder to be sufficient "legal protection" to fall within the question's parameters.
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Without a fictitious right to rely on, the judiciary's role will be limited to review of the various statutory measures States may implement (or were triggered) in the wake of Dobbs. That review will be under the relatively low "rational basis" standard, which requires courts to show deference to the policy decisions made by our legislatures. If courts take seriously the presumptive validity of life-protecting measures, we won't see the activism that gave rise to Roe.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Yes. Although there are regular legal victories against governmental entities that disfavor certain religions (or any religion), the fact that such legal battles are regular means it is a threat that is not going away. Courts exist, in part, to vindicate the rights of the oppressed when the other branches of government can't or won't. Unlike the "right" to abortion, the free exercise of religion is explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Properly read, the First Amendment prohibits only the federal government from establishing an official religion. Through selective incorporation, the Bill of Rights has largely been made applicable to the States. But that does not mean that government must be strictly secular. It would be silly, for example, to pretend our system of law cannot be traced back to Mosaic Law. And it would deny the plain text of our founding documents to deny that ours is a system based on rights given us by a Creator. More than that, it would be dangerous. Be wary of any politician that says your rights come from their collective benevolence.
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Yes. The idea that one should have to give up his sincere religious beliefs in order to run a business should be shocking to ordinary people. The larger problem is public accommodation laws in general. They were a well-intentioned tool to prevent, e.g., overt racial discrimination that deprived people of access to basic goods and services. Masterpiece shows the potential for abuse today, when those protections are extended to obtaining luxury goods like wedding cakes in metropolitan areas with no shortage of willing sellers, and to groups who by some metrics have more buying power than the average American. We now see people seeking out Christian business owners for no apparent reason other than to use the law to punish them when they ask not to be compelled to support something against their faith. That should not be.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I was raised Catholic and now am a deacon in a Baptist church. I believe the one true God created everything and sent his son to live among us and die for us so that our sins could be forgiven and we can one day stand in God's presence. We are to show others the same grace God has shown us. I fail regularly. I pray I get better at it.
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
A parent's right to raise their child as he or she sees fit is one of the few rights so essential to the concept of ordered liberty that it did not need to be written down in the Constitution. This extends to control over the things their child is taught. Regardless of how public education is funded, no parent should be forced to allow their child to learn things contrary to their sincerely held beliefs. They certainly should not have to worry about teachers or counselors encouraging beliefs or choices about sexual identity that conflict with the parent's wishes.
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
It is not yet, and it is difficult to see how it could be. I would of course listen to arguments in favor, but our protected classes seem to fall into two categories: immutable characteristics and religion. Gender identity does not seem to be immutable. We are told to accept whatever someone says they are when they say it, and proponents of the idea that gender differs from sex seem to resist any test. The arguments sound more like how we treat religious matters in constitutional law: we don't want government being in the position of judging whether a particular religion is valid or whether the person claiming faith is sincere. Applying that model to claims of gender unknown to mankind mere years ago is a stretch.
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No.
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 Republican Primary 2022 General Election 2024 Republican Primary 2024 General Election
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Judges should protect fundamental rights and, subject to that responsibility, interpret the law with maximum deference to the one branch of government authorized to make law. This means following the language of the statute when it is plain to ordinary people rather than imposing personal policy preferences on the people of Texas.
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
The law is the law. Regardless of whatever any legislator thought when he or she voted for a bill, it means whatever its plain language meant when it became law. If a law's application does not have the intended results, the legislature can fix it. If it worked exactly as intended but a new legislature holds different values, they can change it. It is not any court's role to decide policy for Texas.
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Clarence Thomas. There are a number of good conservative justices to pick from, but his commitment to choosing a proper interpretation of the Constitution over an "established" interpretation is unmatched. To whatever extent the maxim "It is sometimes better to be consistent than right" has a role to play in judicial decisions, it has no place when interpreting our fundamental rights. Again, the words meant something when they were written. If it takes a few tries to arrive at that meaning, so be it.
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
As a question of text, nothing like 1,000 characters is required: the answer is, "No." To be clear, the text of the Constitution says nothing about any kind of marriage. It is recognized as protected under the 14th Amendment because it is obviously fundamental. And it has never included same-sex couples. Ever. That claim fails the Glucksberg test spectacularly. It is only by ignoring the most obvious characteristic of marriage---the man and the woman---and redefining it by vague notions of "individual autonomy" and "destiny" that the majority could claim all pairings are constitutionally entitled to the same treatment. That ruling must be followed, but it does exactly what Justice Scalia said it does: it robs us of the ability to govern ourselves. I don't know of anyone who would object to a simple form that allows any adult to designate a survivor, share property, or grant visitation rights. This matter could have been amicably settled with a vote.
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
When the text is clear, do what it says to do. In the case of a statute, if what the text compels would be absurd by any reasonable measure, the rule is to assume the legislature would not have intended that result and to examine the legislative history to try to identify what was intended. That is a dangerous game, and one not to be undertaken lightly. A judge should have the humility to understand that not everything they would not vote for is absurd. In the event of ambiguity, a judge's approach depends on what the disputed issue is. Ambiguity in a criminal statute is usually resolved in favor of the citizen. Sometimes, silence on an issue requires the judge to extract from the rest of the statute an overarching policy goal and then apply that to the novel situation. As with interpretation in the wake of an alleged absurdity, this can lead to such a vague formulation that the judge ends up crafting policy rather than honoring the (probable) policy choice the legislature made.
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Judicial restraint is the humility a judge should show by following the law as written regardless of whether he would have written it that way (or at all). There is an exception to applying unambiguous statutory language, that being when the result is so absurd that no rational legislator could have intended it. This should be a high hurdle, but too often it seems like the animating principle behind a court's decision not to follow the plain language. In other words, some judges seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational. This enables them to make the law into something that makes more sense to them, or to "correct" a choice the legislature made. That is judicial activism.
What is the proper role of a judge?
The proper role of an appellate judge is to review the decisions of juries and lower courts. With rare exceptions, the question is not whether they got it right. The question is almost always whether the process used to arrive at that verdict or ruling was correct and, if not, whether it likely affected the outcome. This is not an abdication of responsibility to "do justice." It is a recognition that justice in a system of law limits judicial authority on appeal.
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
No.
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Correct it, but this presupposes the power to correct it. Consonant with the answers above, a court should correct its precedent whenever it breaks with the Constitution's text or original meaning. Unfortunately, lower courts must follow the binding decisions of higher courts even when they are wrong. Even the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot ignore incorrect United States Supreme Court precedent on matters of federal constitutional criminal law.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Requiring the jury to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt strikes the appropriate balance between individual liberty and public safety. If the burden were beyond all doubt, a large(r) percentage of criminals would go unpunished. If the burden were less, as in most civil cases, people would lose their liberty simply by being more likely guilty than not. Neither outcome is desirable.
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Trial courts have the ability to recommend relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals is the ultimate fact-finder. It should be noted that many claims that are labeled "wrongful conviction" or "actual innocence" are not facially anything like a claim of exoneration. That is, the applicant (the convict) is not suggesting he can show he did not commit the offense. Instead, he is saying he would not have been convicted if, for example, the jury heard newly discovered evidence. If relief is granted, the conviction is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court. A new trial may take place but such cases often end with a dismissal by the local prosecutor, and there are multiple bodies with the power to decide the now-non-convict is entitled to compensation.
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
The Second Amendment exists to ensure the federal government respects our right to defend ourselves against oppression with force, if necessary. An armed populace is a free populace.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Literally, the executive branch. As a matter of authority to decide the laws under which we live, the legislative branch. If you have one branch of government to watch, watch them.
